Carbon 14 Dating and the Shroud of Turin

Now, by 2008, few
scholars think that the carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin is correct. As
reported in
the peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta
and by PBS
and National Geographic,
forensic evidence clearly shows that what was tested is chemically
unlike the main body of the Shroud. The chart below shows the clear
differences. The conclusion is that what was tested was a cutting taken
from a medieval repair, a patch of newer material applied to a well worn
corner of the Shroud. The patched-in material was colored with alizarin dye extracted
from Madder plant roots.

Sensitive microchemical tests (phloroglucinol
in concentrated hydrochloric acid) test positive for vanillin (C8H8O3or 4-hydroxy-3-methoxybenzaldehyde) in the
area of the cloth from which the carbon 14 sample were cut, and only in
that area. Vanillin (vanilla) diminishes with time. By calculating the
loss of vanillin from the lignin nodes of the cellulose fibers (E = 29.6
kcal/mole and Z = 3.7 X 10exp11/second) one can determine that the cloth
is at least twice as old the earliest carbon 14 calculated age. (See Ray
Rogers comments below).

At the very least there is reasonable
doubt about the tests' validity and they cannot be considered definitive.
More likely, the 1988 tests are extraordinarily wrong.

Chemical Differences

Carbon 14 Sample Area

Main Part of the Shroud of Turin

Aluminum
as hydrated oxide, common in textile dyeing

Significant (10 to 20 times as much as
found on main part of Shroud)

Virtually none

Madder-root dye (alizarin and purpurin)

Found

Not found

Gum
medium (probably Gum Arabic) as vehicle for dye and mordant

Found

Not found

Lignin at cellulose fiber growth nodes

Very little

Significant

Vanillin
in lignin

Found

Not found

Ultraviolet fluorescence demonstrating
sharp chemical differences

significant

less

Cotton fiber twisted into yarn (thread)

Found

Not found

Spliced fibers (loom joins are overlays
rather than splices)

Found

Not found

Other Considerations

Lignin kinetics decomposition studies show that
cloth is at least twice as old as earliest C14 date.

Bleaching of yarn in hanks before weaving is
pre-medieval and consistent with methods used in the 1st century
in the Eastern Mediterranean region.

Very unique fabric stitching is similar to
stitching found in cloths from Masada fortress (40 BC to 73 AD).

Ray Rogers (see curriculum vitae summary below) responds to the question:
"How do you know that the radiocarbon sample was not valid for dating
the Shroud of Turin?"

The 1988
radiocarbon age determinations were carefully done. The sample
preparation methods, the measurement technologies and procedures, and the
data reduction were adequately planned and executed to answer the most
important question: was the Shroud produced in the
First Century? Damon,et al., reported
that "The age of the shroud is obtained as AD 1260-1390,
with at least 95% confidence." However, that date does not reflect
observations on the linen ­production technology nor the chemistry of
fibers obtained directly from the main part of the shroud in 1978. The
independent analyses from the different laboratories scatter more than
would be expected for a homogeneous sample, raising other questions.

The 1988 sampling
operation was described as follows: "The shroud was separated from the
backing cloth along its bottom left-hand edge and a strip (~10 mm x 70
mm) was cut from just above the place where a sample was previously
removed in 1973 for examination. The strip came from a single site on the
main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas." The use
of a single sample, assuming it was representative of the whole cloth,
defied normal procedures and protocols established before the radiocarbon
study. It was a serious mistake.

To make matters worse,
Mssrs. Franco Testore, professor of textile technology at the Turin
Polytechnic, and Gabriel Vial, curator of the Ancient Textile Museum,
Lyon, France, approved the location of the radiocarbon sample without any
serious attempt at characterizing the sample. No chemical or careful
microscopic sample
characterizations were made. The 1988 work did not guarantee the validity
of the sample.

The
area where the radiocarbon sample was obtained had been photographed in
1978 with an ultraviolet source (see
"UV fluorescence"). While making the UV photographs, the source
was
heavily filtered to exclude visible light and the camera was heavily
filtered to exclude any effect of the UV on the film. All that appears on
the film is the result of pure fluorescence. All
fluorescence is a result of the
chemical composition of the material.

The non-image cloth
typically shows weak fluorescence (upper right). When image appears on
the cloth, it quenches the fluorescence and gives it a brown color. The small, triangular, white area is where the Raes
sample was cut in 1973. The radiocarbon sample was cut upward from there
about 1 cm to the right of the seam and about 7 cm long. The
area where the radiocarbon sample
was taken is relatively dark, a fact that is not the result of
dirt, image color, or scorching. The
cloth is much less fluorescent in that area, brightening into more
typical fluorescence to the right. The photograph proves that the
radiocarbon area has a different chemical composition than the main part
of the cloth. This was obviously not considered before the sample was
cut.

Raes and radiocarbon
yarn show colored encrustations on their surfaces. Some sections
of medulla contain some of the material, showing that it had been able to
flow by capillary attraction as a liquid. The encrustation is not removed
by nonpolar solvents, but it swells and dissolves in water. There
was absolutely no encrustation on either the Holland cloth or fibers from
the main part of the Shroud.

Al Adler had found large amounts of
aluminum in yarn segments from the
radiocarbon sample, up to 2%, by energy-dispersive x-ray analysis.
I found that the radiocarbon sample was uniquely coated with a plant gum
(probably gum Arabic), a hydrous aluminum oxide mordant (the aluminum found by
Adler), and Madder root dye (alizarin and purpurin). Nothing similar
exists on any other part of the Shroud. The photomicrograph shows several
fibers from the center of the radiocarbon sample in water. The gum is
swelling and slowly detaching from the fibers. Many red alizarin/mordant
lakes can be seen, and yellow dye is in solution in the gum. Several
cotton fibers are visible, a situation unique to the Raes and radiocarbon
samples.

The radiocarbon sampling area had been
dyed to match the old part of the cloth. The sample chosen for dating was
totally invalid for determining the true age of the Shroud.

Much of the scientific material on this
site is based on the work of Ray Rogers. Rogers, a chemist, is a science
Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory and a
charter member of the Coalition for Excellence in Science Education. He has
published many scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals and U.S.
Government publications. In 1978, together with several other scientists, he
was invited to personally examine the Shroud of Turin in Italy for several
days. He collected numerous measurements and samples of fibers and
particulate materials for further study. Rogers died on March 8, 2005
shortly after his article was published in Thermochimica Acta.

Editorial Comment

There is little question among those familiar with the topic that the
biggest mistake ever made in carbon 14 dating was the Shroud of Turin.

Sadly, this mistake will
be understood by some as meaning that carbon 14 dating is prone to error,
subject to unexplainable anomalies or plagued by problems of contamination;
none of which is true.

Let's be perfectly clear: carbon 14 dating is an excellent and very accurate
scientific method for determining the age of many things as old as 50,000 years.

The failure to obtain a reliable date for the
Shroud of Turin is not about flaws in carbon 14 dating methods or
contamination. It is not about the problems, so often discussed in the media,
of mysterious biological polymers growing on the cloth's fibers or new carbon
introduced into the Shroud's cloth by a scorching fire in 1532.

It is not about the sloppy work by three very prestigious carbon 14 dating
laboratories. And it is not, as some suggest, about conspiracies
dreamed up to prove religious or anti-religious
arguments (the Shroud is a religious object for some).

It is about a stupid mistake.

Let me illustrate: Recently I sent a soil sample to a testing
laboratory to find out why my lawn was doing so poorly. The lab reported back
that the soil was perfect for grass. It had the right nutrients and the pH
was right on target, neither too acidic or alkaline.

I didn't think so. What had gone wrong?

It turns out that a few weeks earlier I had repaired a spot in my lawn where
my dog had peed and killed the grass. I dug out a small section of soil and
filled the hole with loam I had purchased from a garden supply store. Without
realizing it, I had taken a sample for testing from that repaired area.

The sample was not representative of my lawn. It was chemically unlike the
rest of my lawn. The lab had perfectly analyzed an invalid sample.

Similarly, as we now know, from National Geographic News,
PBS
and several scientific papers, the carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of
Turin was done with an invalid sample. This was confirmed in the
peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica
Acta See: Volume 425 pp. 189-194).

M. Sue Benford and Joseph G. Marino, with the help of several
textile experts, undertook a detailed examination of the documentation
photographs of the carbon 14 samples
and identified clear indications of a medieval patch.

Independently,
Ray Rogers, a Fellow of the University of
California, Los Alamos National Laboratory and a charter member of the
Coalition for Excellence in Science Education has examined actual threads and
fibers adjacent to where the samples were snipped. In a paper he published
with Anna Arnoldi of the University of Milan, Rogers reported finding indisputable
chemical evidence of a repair patch. He found dyestuff and spliced
threads. Others, using scanning electronic microscopes and advanced spectral
analysis tools have confirmed his findings.

This mistake of using an invalid sample should not be allowed to tarnish the
reputation of carbon 14 dating. Unfortunately, we live in a world of easy and careless
polemics. There are some, as well, who because of religious convictions
cannot accept the conclusions of carbon 14 dating. Scientists cannot properly
challenge matters of faith on the basis of science alone. But it would be
unfortunate if those who hold certain beliefs use an erroneous understanding
about carbon 14 dating to challenge carbon 14 dating when it is not carbon 14
dating that is at fault.

The mistake must now be openly admitted in the interest of scientific
integrity. It was a careless mistake, a stupid mistake, a foolish
mistake.

Carbon 14 dating is an invaluable tool for archeology and science. The
mistake made in dating the Shroud of Turin does not diminish this fact.

LINKS

Science

Face on the Shroud as it appears when photographed. This is the negative.

Gum encrusted cotton fiber found only in the carbon 14 sample area and not
elsewhere on the Shroud of Turin.

Close up view of spliced thread in the carbon 14 sample area

Photomicrograph, gum is swelling and
slowly detaching from the fibers and
alizarin mordant lakes can be seen. Yellow dye is in solution.

Phase-contrast microscopy of a single image fiber. Image is a reddish-brown
caramel-like complex carbon bond, a chemical change within a super thin
coating of crude starch on the fabric's outermost fibers. It is not paint or
any kind of applied pigment. It is likely caused by bodily amine vapors
reacting with saccharides in the starch.

Second face image recently discovered with image analysis technology. This a
a computer enhanced view. It matches the face on the front of the Shroud. The images are
doubly-superficial meaning that nothing soaked through.